On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 01:28:46AM +0100, Massimo Manghi wrote:
> I integrated your patch in branches/2.2. I will commit it soon. Just a
> question: what is the benefit for testing the utility program with
>
> if "${with_apu_config}" --version; then
>
> instead
>
> [if test -x "${with_apu_config}"; then
>
> I'm just curious to understand what's the issue they are meant to address.
>
> -- Massimo
I wanted to be able to specify simply the name of apr-1-config, rather than a
full path to it, e.g.
--with-apu-confg=apu-1-config-1.5.4
and have that pass muster as long as such a command existed and responded
appropriately. It wouldn't be too much more work to specify something like
--with-apu-config="$(which ap-1-config-1.5.4)"
but I think its nice for the configure script to allow the program
specification either as the name of the executable or the path of the
executable. With programs that require specification of a tclsh interpreter,
for example, it's nice to be able to say
--with-tclsh=myfunkytclsh
rather than
--with-tclsh=/path/to/myfunkytclsh
--
Yorick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
